CB--I read about, and applaud Colorado's efforts. I think that rigorous registration of gun sales, amped up enforcement of felons owning an unregistered gun, serious penalties for selling a gun without proper registration, and requiring insurance are all reasonable measures that probably are cost-effective. A little fact checking suggests they would be much more effective than Feinstein's proposal--but I think we know that is earnest and symbolic rather than effective.

The problem with state's having their own laws is that guns freely sold in Arizona and Nevada are behind much of the gun violence in California and Mexico. We know that people will not rigorously obey limitations on gun sales--but corporate manufacturers, the money behind the NRA, will have to or get caught.

I think that Obama is, again, much smarter than the gun nuts and conservatives afraid of the NRA. This issue splits strongly on a gender basis, with a small minority of men opposing any additional restrictions, and a strong majority of women supporting strong restrictions. The thought of an easily-obtained gun killing their child is a haunting vision for women. If the Republicans fail to play nice in the sand box, this is a wedge issue that could ensure strong turn-out in 2014 and end the filibuster and House majorities for Republicans. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing--but the decades of creating safe districts has polarized safe Republican districts into reactionary strongholds.

Obviously, guns cross state lines. But, if transportation of firearms is is a criminal activity, only the criminals will be involved. In other words, these folks are up to no good anyway and with 200 M guns, they are going to find a gun somewhere illegally. I, honestly, do not believe we are going to do much about gun violence, related to crime, because of the large numbers of guns available. But, if guns are harder to get in urban areas, crimes of passion, using a firearm, may be reduced. Accidents may be reduced. These are the areas that I believe that gun control laws are most effective.

A major downside with legislation, that originates at the Federal level, is that these laws can, easily, be changed or eliminated with a change in the legislature. If states control the laws, there is less likelihood of this occurring.

CB--I read about, and applaud Colorado's efforts. I think that rigorous registration of gun sales, amped up enforcement of felons owning an unregistered gun, serious penalties for selling a gun without proper registration, and requiring insurance are all reasonable measures that probably are cost-effective. A little fact checking suggests they would be much more effective than Feinstein's proposal--but I think we know that is earnest and symbolic rather than effective.

The problem with state's having their own laws is that guns freely sold in Arizona and Nevada are behind much of the gun violence in California and Mexico. We know that people will not rigorously obey limitations on gun sales--but corporate manufacturers, the money behind the NRA, will have to or get caught.

I think that Obama is, again, much smarter than the gun nuts and conservatives afraid of the NRA. This issue splits strongly on a gender basis, with a small minority of men opposing any additional restrictions, and a strong majority of women supporting strong restrictions. The thought of an easily-obtained gun killing their child is a haunting vision for women. If the Republicans fail to play nice in the sand box, this is a wedge issue that could ensure strong turn-out in 2014 and end the filibuster and House majorities for Republicans. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing--but the decades of creating safe districts has polarized safe Republican districts into reactionary strongholds.

CB--I read about, and applaud Colorado's efforts. I think that rigorous registration of gun sales, amped up enforcement of felons owning an unregistered gun, serious penalties for selling a gun without proper registration, and requiring insurance are all reasonable measures that probably are cost-effective. A little fact checking suggests they would be much more effective than Feinstein's proposal--but I think we know that is earnest and symbolic rather than effective.

The problem with state's having their own laws is that guns freely sold in Arizona and Nevada are behind much of the gun violence in California and Mexico. We know that people will not rigorously obey limitations on gun sales--but corporate manufacturers, the money behind the NRA, will have to or get caught.

I think that Obama is, again, much smarter than the gun nuts and conservatives afraid of the NRA. This issue splits strongly on a gender basis, with a small minority of men opposing any additional restrictions, and a strong majority of women supporting strong restrictions. The thought of an easily-obtained gun killing their child is a haunting vision for women. If the Republicans fail to play nice in the sand box, this is a wedge issue that could ensure strong turn-out in 2014 and end the filibuster and House majorities for Republicans. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing--but the decades of creating safe districts has polarized safe Republican districts into reactionary strongholds.

Are you putting forward Quayle and Bush as lions of intellect? What convinces conservatives that good government does not require good thinking and articulate speaking? Their ideas were bad, and their explanations were poor. But it doesn't matter, the elections were won and lost and the Republicans taking advantage of hatred.

Did you see Marco Rubio's response to the State of the Union show?
You prolly did, and what did you hear him say?
"Gulp- glup", and that was prolly all you heard, along with the rest of the MSM.

When you think of Dan Quayle what do you think of?
How about Dubya?

Thought so. LOL

You can keep the brilliant, BHO, Pelosi, and Reid.

NO. Wrong again, NW..the media owns you. What I heard from the "savior" of the Rethugs is that he hates GOVT. EXCEPT when it pays his mother's doctors bills, and subsidizes his student loans, and allows his parents to immigrate to Florida. Other than that it was a totally cohesive speech....until he got so stressed out from toting the tea party's lines that he had to take a sippee of agua. It was a joke of a speech and showed how much of a lightweight Mr Rubio really is.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum